Ex Parte Bergquist et al - Page 6




               Appeal No. 2006-0269                                                                                                  
               Application No. 10/166,154                                                                                            
               made obvious the claimed invention.@  In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 USPQ2d                                      
               1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that the                                  
               combined teachings of the cited references would have rendered obvious the claimed                                    
               article for cleansing body surfaces, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the                           
               present invention.                                                                                                    
                       The federal circuit has explained in In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86, 78                                     
               USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) that                                                                               

                          [t]o reject claims in an application under section 103, an examiner must                                   
                       show an unrebutted prima facie case of obviousness .... On appeal to the                                      
                       Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing insufficient                                          
                       evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case                                      
                       with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness. [In re] Rouffett,                                       
                       [149 F.3d 1350, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998)] 149 F.3d at 1355.                                            
                          …                                                                                                          
                           [T]o establish a prima facie case of obviousness based on a                                               
                       combination of elements disclosed in the prior art, the Board must                                            
                       articulate the basis on which it concludes that it would have been obvious                                    
                       to make the claimed invention. Id. In practice, this requires that the Board                                  
                       “explain the reasons one of ordinary skill in the art would have been                                         
                       motivated to select the references and to combine them to render the                                          
                       claimed invention obvious.” Id. at 1357-59. This entails consideration of                                     
                       both the “scope and content of the prior art” and “level of ordinary skill in                                 
                       the pertinent art” aspects of the Graham[2] test.                                                             
                       The examiner acknowledges that Farrell discloses a pouch formed of non-woven                                  
               sheet of polypropylene.  Answer, page 3.  Both Brennan and Thaman generally address                                   
               conventional or known types of non-woven sheets used in the application of cosmetics                                  
               and for application of compositions such as moisturizers to the skin.   For example,                                  
               Brennan discloses that “it has been found that when appropriate fibers are utilized, the                              

                                                                                                                                     
               2    Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).                                                  
                                                                 6                                                                   



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007